Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
-
@bornach @bellegraylane @cstross just waiting for The Boring Company to pivot to AI…
-
@cstross It was obvious bollocks (just like hyperloop, the boring company etc…), just I didn’t know why he was boosting it as I didn’t realise he was planning an IPO this year. Tosser.
-
(Some) lawyers can (and will, if paid enough) argue against physics, but their chance of winning (other than the money you're paying them) is less than infinitesimal. (They're hoping they will be paid more than they get sanctioned for.)
@Cadbury_Moose
In my experience, those lawyers are called politicians
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross this applies to every company that mentions data centres in space.
Most tech "journalists" seem hesitant to ask basic questions about this shit because what if they start having to ask basic questions about everything. Sounds like a lot of work!
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross The most compelling argument I've heard for putting datacenters in space (in the "didn't immediately discount it as a stupid idea but took some time to engage with it" sense) was from Scott Manley, notorious fan of everything space-related, and even he concluded that it only makes sense as an end-run around terrestrial regulation (i.e. it's a stupid and expensive idea but in the grand scheme of markets it may be cheaper than "buying enough politicians to steal a community's water rights out from under them so you can get the permits to build on land").
Which... Yeah, when that's the forcing function, maybe we tech folk should sit and have a think about the entire project.
-
@cstross The most compelling argument I've heard for putting datacenters in space (in the "didn't immediately discount it as a stupid idea but took some time to engage with it" sense) was from Scott Manley, notorious fan of everything space-related, and even he concluded that it only makes sense as an end-run around terrestrial regulation (i.e. it's a stupid and expensive idea but in the grand scheme of markets it may be cheaper than "buying enough politicians to steal a community's water rights out from under them so you can get the permits to build on land").
Which... Yeah, when that's the forcing function, maybe we tech folk should sit and have a think about the entire project.
Like, we already have trouble keeping things cool in space and there’s also the whole “space is a deadly laser” radiation thing. I really can’t imagine how there’d be any benefit to putting a data center in space. Like, at all.
-
@rk @cstross Exactly. It's literally a "This is a stupid idea and the only reason we do it is we were forbidden from putting it on Earth" kinda thing.
As I said at one point or other, to paraphrase myself, "Sure, there's no convenient cooling and radiation will scramble your data, but just think how much CSAM you can store out of reach of any terrestrial law... Until you try and download it and they bust your ass the moment it hits a radio dish!"
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross I'm going to start a betting squares pool on the looming Kessler event. We've already got enough shit in orbit, it's time to bet on it crashing.
Side Note:
Do you remember when McDonald's and some start up company planned on putting a LEO 1 sq mile billboard up? It was an unfolding mylar advert that would degrade and burnup within 3 months. But during that time, everyone in the Northern Hemisphere would get the sun blotted out at least 1x day.
Batshit crazy, space, and billionaires just seem to gravitate together like blackholes.
-
@cstross The most compelling argument I've heard for putting datacenters in space (in the "didn't immediately discount it as a stupid idea but took some time to engage with it" sense) was from Scott Manley, notorious fan of everything space-related, and even he concluded that it only makes sense as an end-run around terrestrial regulation (i.e. it's a stupid and expensive idea but in the grand scheme of markets it may be cheaper than "buying enough politicians to steal a community's water rights out from under them so you can get the permits to build on land").
Which... Yeah, when that's the forcing function, maybe we tech folk should sit and have a think about the entire project.
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross Markets eat all his sf shit without hesitation. No checking of facts or realism. They are driven by one thought, and one thought only: what if he knows more than we and he actually pull it off - and we have not invested!!
-
@ApostateEnglishman You ask about failed SpaceX launches: turns out Falcon 9 has launched 606 times with 603 mission successes. 3 launch failures total, none in the past 11 years. It's *ridiculously* reliable compared to any of its rivals.
(Falcon 1—discontinued—was a buggy prototype; Starship is trying to get past that.)
(Tesla is not going to give us humanoid robots, not beyond showroom rigged demos targeting the investors' wallets. And I'm NOT having one of those brain implants, no way!)
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
NOTE: Those rules used to be much simpler. More along the lines of, "Not anything using Microsoft or Oracle software."
ETA: Insert joke about, "Blue Screen of Death."
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross When Kessler syndrome happens, do I get fractional shares?
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
A few years back, Bruce Sterling was doing his thing on stage and talking about how fucked anyone with an implant would be under the DMCA and planned obsolescence.
-
Because a LOT of people are missing the point:
No, Elon Musk is NOT serious about putting a million data centres into orbit. It can't work: laws of physics say "nope".
But SpaceX is expected to go public this year.
Elon is talking up his company's future prospects in front of gullible investors because he needs a growth narrative beyond Starlink, which is already priced in. Something to justify the Starship proram beyond NASA's lunar ambitions.
So it's salesman's bullshit, lies for fools.
@cstross Data centers in orbit are the new "Solar roadways" scam.
-
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
A few years back, Bruce Sterling was doing his thing on stage and talking about how fucked anyone with an implant would be under the DMCA and planned obsolescence.
@emma @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
And now we have proof of that on the ground with audio implants and heart defibrillators stopping working because the company went out of business.
Really? DRM should be banned from *anything* medical related for incredibly obvious reasons; although banning DRM altogether isn't a bad idea either.
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman I like technology you can take off when it goes wrong.
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman
We know so little about the brain's real mechanics that brain implants can't be any more sophisticated than plugging a phone into a potato.
Brain implants today are like using a railgun to crochet lace.
-
@gbargoud
The hell, I toolk this as a plot element in @bitterkarella 's latest gag?
Argh. I'm gonna hide under a rock...
@cstross @tony@bitterkarella just transcribes what's happening. Reality has lapped satire.
-
My rules for brain implants:
1. I will not alpha or beta test; in fact I think waiting for v3.25 is probably for the best
2. Must run Open Source software *not using any dependencies requiring a Package Manager*
3. Must not require *any* kind of 'cloud' to operate, must work fine without a network connection, and must be locally configurable
4. You know what? Even if it meets rules 1 to 3 I'm still not too hot on the idea…
@jackwilliambell @cstross @ApostateEnglishman I'd add to that a physical bypass. I want a switch that I can flip that will completely disable the device. This switch can't be flipped with software, and it is impossible for the device to function (think "airgap in the power supply") without the switch in the on position.
Still probably a "no" for me.
